The Passage:
Luke 18:1-8

The Parameters

Instructions on the coming of the Son of Man (17:22-37)

The following parable on prayer (18:9-14)

In that day judges traveled around and held court in tents. They set their own agendas and about the only way to have your court case heard was to bribe one of the attendants to bring your case to the attention of the judge. This widow had a couple things working against her. She was a woman, and women were low on the social ladder. She also had no money to bribe the attendants, so her case was not heard.

The Problem

What is the relationship between praying and losing heart? I think this teaches that if we do not pray we will give up.

Therefore the problem is: How can we keep praying and not lose heart?

The Progression

Logical: What is the cause of answered prayer? What are two reasons why people give up too soon?

The Unjust Judge (the reason requests are not answered)

Secular

He did not fear God

Selfish

He did not respect men

This man is the exact opposite of what we know to be the two greatest commandments - loving God and loving your neighbor.

The Persistent Widow (the way requests are made)

Her coming

She is persistent. Imperfect tense in Greek. She keeps on coming.

Her case -

She just wants justice. She is not asking for the advantage. She is just asking for justice. We all want justice. We all want life to be fair. I can’t count the number of times my daughter says that something is not fair when she sees her brother get a bigger pile of potato chips, a bigger piece of cake, one more of whatever.... It is an inborn desire for things to be fair.

The Unjust Judge (the reason requests are answered)

The judge does not answer because he cares about God, justice or the woman. Jesus is using boxing imagery here for wearing a person down by hitting him under the eye. The judge is not concerned with a knockout, but she is wearing him down. He answers because she is annoying him.

The Just Judge (The reason why requests are answered)

• “Now shall not God bring about justice” (vs. 7) -- The first reason is because of the character of God. He is just. Jesus used an example of an unjust judge as a contrast with God who is just. God can be trusted to be a just God--to make right decisions. Psa 145: God covers his acts with hesed (loyal-love).
• “for his elect who cry to Him day and night.” (vs. 7) -- Jesus used a widow as an example again to set up a contrast with us. He argues from the lesser to the greater. If an unjust judge (who is not like God) will hear the case of a widow and stranger (which we are not) then surely God will hear our prayers. God has graciously initiated a relationship with his children. He chooses who he wants in His family, and He will listen to His children.
• “and will He delay long over them?” (vs. 7) -- While He may delay, His answer comes speedily. This does not mean they will be answered immediately. It means that when it happens it will happen quickly. Like the coming of the Lord will happen suddenly. Remember that the context is the coming of the Lord in Luke 17.
• The justice that is going to come speedily is possibly the tribulation.

What is the point of the question at the end of verse 8? “... when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?

The Point

Persistent prayer is the demonstration of faith in God who, while at times may delay His answers, will always act decisively and justly with respect to His people.

The Relation of the Parable to the Kingdom Program of God

God is just. The second advent will bring justice. Our part is to wait in faith for Him to deal with the world in justice.

The Principles

It is important to understand that this parable is one of contrasts. If you don’t you will think God must be pestered, argued with and bribed in order to get your prayers answered. The parable is not teaching that. God wants to answer the prayers of his children.

We lose heart because we don’t understand God’s timing or purpose. We ask questions like, “When... or Why now.... or How could you....? We challenge the justice and goodness of God.

This parable deals with two issues: God’s character and God’s chronology.

Persistent prayer is the demonstration of faith in the character of God’s attributes and the chronology of his actions.

This parable teaches that the only legitimate reason to stop praying for something is the return of Christ. (vs. 8) It says, “When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?” The demonstration of that faith is persistent prayer. When you stop believing a prayer will be answered, you stop praying. You have given up hope. You have no faith.

What items have dropped off your prayer list that you need to put back on?

God is a loving father who wants His children to keep coming to Him. If you are a parent, you should be able to identify with that.

A Comparison of events in Matthew and Luke show much similarity in sequence and give a probable time when the parable was taught.

The Passage
Matt 20:1-16

Matthew	Luke
18:Forgiveness	16:Divorce
19:Divorce	17:Forgiveness
	Obedience/Service
	18:Pharisee and Publican
Children brought	Children brought
Rich Ruler	Rich Ruler
Peter’s Question	Peter’s Question
20:Laborers in the Vineyard	Promise of rewards
Rank in the Kingdom	Teaching about Jesus’ death
Healing of two blind men	Healing of two blind men
21:Triumphal Entry	19:Triumphal Entry

The Parameters:

Jesus meets the Rich Young Ruler who says, “Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” What did we just learn in the last parable? (Pharisee and Publican) It is not what you do or do not do that justifies you in Gods eyes. The young ruler thought he had kept the law all his life. He thought he could get to heaven by his own works. Jesus ignores that question because the man cant get saved until he knows he is lost. So Jesus tells him that he must sell everything he has. The purpose of the demand was to point the man to his sinfulness and inability to earn eternal life so that he could then receive the free gift of eternal life from Jesus. The man cant bring himself to do that and leaves.

When the man leaves, Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom.” The disciples ask “then who can be saved?” because they are still flirting with the theology of their day which says rich guys are rich because they are righteous and so the rich have an advantage.

So, after hearing Jesus’ discussion with the rich man about giving away all his property, Peter says, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” The disciples have a mercenary ministry. They want to know what their reward will be. After all, Jesus had said there would be treasure in heaven (Mat 19:21). What does Jesus say? “Peter, shhhh, don’t ask that question.” No, Jesus tells them that they would be rewarded. They would sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.

But Jesus also warns them that the first would be last and the last would be first and begins the parable. And the phrase, The last shall be first and the first, last. concludes the parable.

The Problem:

What does it mean that the last will be first and vice versa? What will be the reward for those who give up everything and follow Jesus? Can I trust God to be fair in the distribution of rewards? If you are asking the question, then you really don’t trust your employer.

The Progression:

Chronological - The parable emphasizes the times that the laborers were hired. Mark Bailey calls this parable, “A day on the job in the kingdom of God.” (because the work takes place throughout the day and the payroll is at the end of the day.)

The Landowner hired laborers early in the morning (6:00) and made an agreement with them to pay them a denarius for the day’s work. It says the owner agreed which makes me think the workers asked for the denarius and he agreed to it.

The Landowner went out again at 9:00, 12:00, 3:00 and 5:00 and asked others if they would like to come to work without indicating what they would earn, only that he would be fair (vs. 4). If the first guy is going to get 1 denarius for 12 hours work, what do you expect the 2nd group to get? 3/4, then 1/2 then 1/4 and then 1/12th respectively.

At the end of the day, the Landowner went to pay them and started with the last group. He gave them each 1 denarius. What do you expect the next group to get? Three denarii. The next group six, and the next nine and the first group that was hired expects to get 12 denarii. But he gave everyone the same amount - one denarius - regardless of whether they had worked one hour or twelve hours.

Those hired first complained and accused the owner of being unfair.

But the owner justifies his actions:

• on the basis of agreement - they agreed to work for a denarius. The owner calls him “friend” which in Matt is not a term of endearment.
• on the basis of ownership - can I do what I want with what is mine?
• on the basis of generosity - can I be gracious to whom I want to be gracious?

How much did those hired in the middle of the day or at the end of the day agree to work for?

None of those hired late made a deal concerning how much they would be paid. And all of them got more than they expected or deserved. But the ones who contracted for a denarius got exactly what they bargained for.

What should we conclude? If you want more than you contracted for, don’t contract. It is the same old issue of legalism versus grace. We think we want legalism or justice, but grace is so much better.

Jesus ends with the proverb - “the last shall be first and the first last.” Which means, if you are striving to be first, you won’t make it.

Perhaps the parable in Luke 17:7 is applicable here too. In that parable, the slave was expected to work and not worry about thanks or payment. Here too, the lesson seems to be to just work and not worry about rewards or payment.

The Point:

We are to serve God faithfully and let him worry about the reward.

The Program Of God:

Whether you come in early or late, you can still enter and enjoy the benefits of the kingdom of God. One’s faithfulness will determine one’s function in the future.

I think this parable also relates to the issue of Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom. The Jews had been working for God for over 2000 years already and it did not seem right that God would let these Gentiles in at such a late hour and give them all the blessings of the kingdom. The attitude of the Jews, was that they had earned all the blessings of the kingdom by keeping the law all those years.

The Principles:

The landowner represents God and thus we learn about God’s character.

Three characteristics of the consummate CEO:

• We see that God is just - He treats everyone fairly. We can trust God to be fair. But God is more than just.
• God is sovereign - He can do what He wants. He didn’t need to go to that intersection to get those workers. He could have gone elsewhere. God chose Jacob over Esau while still in the womb. If we understand who owns everything and that he could have chosen others, that should bring appreciation for the opportunity to serve. It should also eliminate comparison and pride - it was grace that I was chosen.
• God is generous. That should eliminate pride. If one person has more than another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve it.

How would you like to work for someone who was always fair, always in control and generous to boot? Guess what - We do!

Principles for the Payroll:

• We need to be faithful since merit is taken into account at the judgment. 1Co 3: says there will be rewards. We can’t throw out rewards just because we have one parable in which all received equal amounts. This doesn’t teach that there are no rewards, it teaches the grace and generosity of God.
  I’ve been a Christian about 30 years and have gone to seminary, taught Sunday school, and seminary classes, preached, been and elder, etc. But if someone comes to Christ today and one week from now, Jesus returns, and that person was faithful 100% of the time, he could receive more rewards than me. God will treat me fairly and I won’t be able to say, “You didn’t give me enough.” He can be gracious to a latecomer, give them an hour of opportunity and reward them for 100% faithfulness and that is fair.
  Why would I want that to be true even when I’m 33 years old and have been a Christian for 30 years? If I die tomorrow, am I at a disadvantage to those that lived to be 100 and were Christians 95 years? No. It is not length of service that is important. It is one’s attitude and motivation. 1Cor 4:5
• This doesn’t just apply to time, it can also apply to ability. Jesus said some will produce 30,60 and 100 fold in Matt 13. If I don’t have the brains nor skill of someone like Chuck Swindoll, but I’m faithful, I could receive as many or more rewards.
• There will be grace and I need to be thankful. We should serve and let God worry about the rewards.
• We should not despise those who are saved at the end because they are valuable too.
• I think too often we have the attitude that we obligate God by our actions - by our obedience - by our service, but we don’t, and I think God’s distribution of rewards will undoubtedly reverse many expectations.

At the beginning of the parable, Peter wanted to strike a bargain with Christ to find out what he would get. He wanted to know up front. “What’s in it for us?” Jesus is telling him “You don’t want to know” because if Peter had made a deal with Jesus, it wouldn’t have been as much as if he had just served faithfully.

Do you think that the disciples understood what Jesus was teaching with this parable? Did they learn their lesson? Not at all. In the very next scene in Matt 20, The sons of Zebedee (James and John) came to Jesus with their mother to ask if they could sit at Jesus’ left and right hand in the kingdom. What are they asking? If they can be first in the kingdom.

I think we can apply the principles from this parable to more than just length of service. It also applies to types of service - our spiritual gifts. 15 minutes in the nursery from 12:00 to 12:15 may earn more rewards than preaching for 50 minutes. Endurance earns more than eloquence.

The Passage:
Matt 21:28-32

The Parameters

The Pharisees had just challenged Jesus’ authority and He responded by asking them to identify John the Baptist’s authority. They refused to say that JB’s authority was from heaven because they didn’t like JB nor what he preached. But verse 25 shows that they knew what John was proclaiming - that Jesus was the Messiah. They refused to say that John’s authority was from Satan because they feared the crowds. So Jesus refused to answer them. But he tells a parable.

The Problem

What is the reason for the lack of response to JB in Israel?

How does one demonstrate that he is a son of the kingdom?

The Progression

Biographical -it’s about two sons

What does it mean to be a son in this parable? Does being a son = being saved? No. Many think when the read a parable and see that someone is a son or a servant that that means he is a Christian. But in this one and the prodigal son, being a son does not equal salvation.

First Son

• Verbal rejection
• Later repentance

Who does the first son represent?

He represents the sinners, harlots, tax gatherers, and all the outcasts. The outcasts initially were saying by their life style that they didn’t want to follow God. But when confronted by their sin, they changed their mind (repented) and believed.

Second Son

• Verbal commitment
• Actual disobedience

Who does the second son represent?

The second son represents the religious leaders who said “I will obey the law” but didn’t. In fact, their claim was not that they will obey, but that they “did” obey it - all the time. That was the claim of the Pharisee in parable about the Pharisee and the publican praying.

But Jesus taught otherwise. The whole sermon on the mount and many of the controversies with Jesus showed that they were not obeying the law. The verbal commitment of the second son is not a statement of faith. It is representative of the Pharisees who by their actions were saying I don’t need to do any more than I’m already doing. But what they were doing was following ritual. They had substituted ritual for righteousness. This is the message of the prophets (Micah 6:8). By the time of Jesus the religious leaders thought that eternal life came from studying the torah.

Jesus' Question

What is Jesus trying to do with his question?

When He says that tax collectors and harlots are going to get into the kingdom before the religious leaders, how should the religious leaders feel?

Jesus is trying to make the religious leaders jealous. (Rom 11:11) When the leaders saw these kinds of people repenting, changing their lifestyles, etc., it should have made them wake up. But they weren’t convicted, they felt threatened. They didn’t want the kind of kingdom Jesus was offering. The next parable will tell us what their motivation was.

The Point

Regardless of one’s background, repentance and faith are what qualifies one to enter the kingdom of God.

The Relation of the Parable to the Kingdom Program of God

Same as above

The Particulars

It was God’s purpose for the people to respond to JB but they rejected it. (Luke 7:30) There was a legitimate offer of the kingdom. They didn’t accept, so God replaced them with the Gentiles (temporarily).

Is this parable teaching works salvation? If not, how do you explain that it does not? After all it was the son who went to work that got in. How do you get in? The parable is not teaching works salvation, vs. 32 says to believe. That is the “work” in this parable. The leaders would not believe the message.

“A son does not a believer make” in this parable. The scribes and Pharisees are one son and the other son is the harlots and tax gatherers. Both were sons. One entered the kingdom and the other didn’t. Don’t assume because the word servant or son is used in a parable that it is equal to believer.

The Principles

• Repentance, faith and obedience are more pleasing to God than self-righteous ritualism.
• Repentance and faith are demonstrated by obedience. John 15:14
• Past lifestyles of the repentant are no disqualification from the kingdom.
• God extends grace to down-and-outers to incite jealousy and faith.
• God honors faith rather than false profession. That is a controversial statement these days with the Lordship Salvation debate going on, but I think the false profession here is that the religious leaders said they followed God, but they wouldn’t follow His Son. This will be elaborated on in the next parable.

The Passage:
Matt 22:1-14

The Parameters

This parable is preceded by a parable about two sons - one who said he wouldn’t work and then did afterward, and one who said he would go to work and then never did. We saw that the “work” was to “believe.” This parable referred to the leader’s rejection of the message of John the Baptist and their rejection of Christ.

It is also preceded by the parable of the vineyard owner. In that parable the vineyard keepers killed the owner’s son. This was symbolic of the religious leaders rejection of Messiah. Consequently, the Kingdom would be withdrawn from Israel and given to a nation who would produce fruit. That nation is the church which is comprised of the outcasts and Gentiles.

Therefore, the context to our parable is salvation and entering the kingdom (cf. 21:31).

The Problem

Since Israel is rejecting her Messiah, what will happen to those who reject? What does it take to get in the kingdom? The Jews are missing the kingdom, how does one not miss it?

The Progression: Ideological or Chronological

The Invitations to the originally invited (1-8)

The First invitation (2-3)

The original guests refused to come because they were unwilling. In that culture, to reject the invitation of a king, was treason or a declaration of war. This is a serious offense.

The first invitation was actually not the first. An advance invitation went out telling of the coming feast. This is not pictured in the story. It is understood as part of the culture. Those who had received the advance invitation had ample time to prepare for the feast. They had no legitimate excuses. (This is symbolic of Israel having plenty of advanced warning that the Messiah was coming - i.e. the prophets). The first invitation in the story is really the one saying that dinner is served. (This is symbolic of JB and JC saying that Messiah and the kingdom are here.)

The Second Invitation (4-6)

The King gave second chances to the original guests. The original guests are representative of the nation of Israel. The King represents God who extended the invitation to enter the kingdom and partake of the feast. The fact that He makes another invitation shows his patience. It also shows the graciousness of the host who took care to explain that all was ready and how great the feast would be to entice them to attend.

They refused because of apathy. They did not care. The excuses:

• one to his farm
• another to his business
• the rest seized and killed the servants.

Having a farm or your own business is not bad. It is being preoccupied with these temporal things and forgetting about the eternal. They were guilty of materialism and apathy. Then they killed the messenger. They moved from apathy to antagonism. Mat 23:35, 2Ch 30:1-10.

The Reaction of the King (7-8)

His Anger

Sent his armies

Destroyed the murderers

Burned the city

This is the typical war or destruction motif of the Old Testament. What is the result of rejecting the invitation? Destruction. This did in fact happen to Jerusalem in 70 AD (about 40 years later).

His Attitude

Those who were invited were not worthy. What makes one worthy? To Matthew, worthiness comes through reception of the invitation. A right response to the message. In the parable about the two sons, we saw that belief was what was necessary, so faith is the key to becoming worthy. Who makes you worthy? The one who graciously invited you. Worthiness is not the result of merit. It is the result of faith.

The New Invitation (9-10)

The Evaluation by the King (11-13)

The lack of preparation (11)

Barclay says that the wedding clothes are the good works and pure heart and life that one leads after becoming a Christian. He says it is not these that get you into heaven, but it is the respect you show God after you believe. (Barclay, Matthew, p. 270-271.) I disagree. I think the wedding clothes are not something we bring to the banquet because wedding clothes were often provided by wealthy hosts. (Gower, New Manners and Customs of the Bible, p. 69) Certainly God would be considered to be the most gracious and wealthiest host. It may be that this man refused to wear the wedding clothes offered. Perhaps he thought his own clothes were good enough. What might the “clothes” symbolize? Good deeds?

2Ki 10:22 and Isa 61:10 also talk about the dress or robes provided by the host. If you showed up for a banquet and you weren’t dressed properly it showed that you came inadequately on your own provision and that you rejected the host’s provision. See Hendriksen Matthew p. 797-98. Cf. Rev 3:4,5 & 18

Isa 61:10 says, “I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, My soul will exult in my God; For He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, As a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.”

The loss of participation (12-13)

The king sees someone not wearing wedding clothes. In verse 12 the king calls him “Friend.” In Matthew, this is a term of distancing and condemnation. It’s like “Hey, Buddy” or “Hey, Lady.”

Notice that the man is speechless when the king confronts him. Rom 3:19 says that “every mouth will be closed” when people stand accountable before God. Perhaps that is what Jesus is referring to.

They threw him into the outer darkness. The question is where is the outer darkness?

Some teach that this is the suburbs in the millennium. Zane Hodges in his book, Grace in Eclipse, says that those who show up at the banquet all made it into heaven, but participating in the banquet is only the privilege of those who have carried out their obligations as Christians while on earth. He also thinks the wedding clothes are something believers bring with them to the banquet. He equates the King’s observation of the guests at the banquet to the Bema seat where Christ judges the Believers for their good works. The guy made it to heaven but can’t partake of the banquet because he wasn’t a good enough Christian.

Others teach that “outer darkness” is hell. Which view is correct?

What is the Outer Darkness?

Ask class to suggest arguments

IN HEAVEN (but just barely and not participating in the banquet)

For this to be true:

Being at the banquet cannot be equal to being in heaven. It must be some special event/reward for the faithful Christians.

The visit by the host must be an evaluation of Christian deeds (Bema). It is not the Son who is judging? It is the King. No other scripture teaches that any member of the Church won’t take part in the marriage feast. Perhaps this evaluation is the Great white throne judgment which purpose is to determine eternal destiny. Not eternal privilege.

Wedding clothes must equal good deeds as a Christian. Rev 19:7-8 would support this idea but that passage is dealing with the church - after the Bema. We’ve just seen that that is suspect.

“Outer darkness” must equal the “darkness outside” the banquet hall, not hell.

HELL

Context of the preceding parables is about salvation. The issue is being in or out of the kingdom, not receiving special privileges in the kingdom.

Banquet imagery always refers to the Kingdom / Heaven. Therefore, partaking of the Banquet equals being in the kingdom, and being kicked out of the banquet means kicked out of the Kingdom. The statement by the man in Luke 14:15 and the parable of the Great Banquet which Jesus told right after that was about getting into the kingdom. Therefore, this parable is about getting into the kingdom / heaven - not about attending special events in the kingdom.

The King called the man “Friend.” This is never a good term in Matthew. Therefore the man is not a friend.

Wedding clothes were often provided by wealthy hosts. (Gower, New Manners and Customs of the Bible, p. 69) It may be that this man refused to wear them. He thought his own clothes (i.e. deeds) were good enough. This fits the context of the parable of the two sons. The son who said he would work and didn’t was symbolic of the Pharisees who thought they were doing enough already. Therefore, the wedding clothes provided by host symbolize the righteousness of Christ provided by God for entrance to Heaven - as opposed to our garments/merit which are not good enough to get us into heaven/banquet.

There is no darkness in Heaven. Therefore, the outer darkness = hell, not the suburbs of the kingdom.

“Weeping and gnashing of teeth” doesn’t sound like the joy we are to experience in heaven. It sounds too severe for those who are in heaven. Also, in inter-testamental literature this term “weeping and gnashing of teeth” was a common idiom for hell.

“Outer darkness” and “gnashing of teeth” only used by Matthew and it means hell in the other passages in which it is used. Matt 8:11; 13:42,50; 24:51; 25:30. For example, Matt 8:11 “And I say to you, that many shall come from east and west, and recline [at the table] with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven; 12 but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. “ In that one passage we see banqueting imagery used for participating in the kingdom and the outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth used for hell.

In Matt 13: the phrase is also used and the context is the parable of the tares, dragnet, etc. This is also a kingdom/salvation passage.

Conclusion: For this man to be saved,

the banquet has to represent something it doesn’t normally represent,

the evaluation of Christians is being done by the king (not the son as scripture teaches)

outer darkness and weeping and gnashing of teeth have to represent something they don’t normally represent

and the wedding clothes must be our own which is against the cultural norm where the host provides them. Rev 19:8 supports this idea but that is Bema seat context.

Therefore, we can conclude that this man is not saved. And, if this man is not saved, then this parable is correctly identified as a salvation parable - about getting into the kingdom - not about works one does as a Christian.

The Principle:

Jesus concludes with the statement: “Many are called but few are chosen.” How do you know if you are chosen? If you believe. Therefore, acceptance of the invitation is necessary for entrance into the kingdom of God.

The Relation of the Parable to the Kingdom of God

This parable also shows the rejection of Messiah by Israel and the turning of God to the Gentiles with the offer of the kingdom. It is the same theme as the preceding parable (cf. 21:43). Those who refuse the invitation (who do not believe) will be excluded from the kingdom.

Application

God is gracious and patient and keeps on offering the invitation.

God has made the offer to everyone.

Do not presume on the patience of God. A time will come when it will be too late.

Do not be caught unprepared (i.e. not believing) when the feast begins.

Reasons for not believing:

Indifference - 3-5 - too busy with family, business, hobbies, etc.

Rebellion - 6 - similar to last parable. Perhaps they are becoming convicted of their sin and are rejecting the conviction.

Self-righteousness - The guest wouldn’t wear his robe. He was independent. This also fits context with the parable of the two sons.